Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46

Thread: confused... about pit bulls

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VIC
    Posts
    2,789

    Default

    True! that would be a good option!
    i was just thinking a licence for pit bulls cause that seems to be the only breed that people are freaking out about... even though they dont have to :/

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    Lol we were just talking about this on facebook... I posted a picture up of some PTS dogs hoping two certain people on my friends list that had just had a litter of AmStaffy puppies and were trying to sell them for $700 each would see it! haha
    I also have a guy on my facebook trying to sell puppies at $700, he is not a registered breeder But has good looking dogs. I was almost tempted. But i fought it!
    No one loves you like your dog does.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lala View Post
    So do are these laws meant to actually ban the generic pitbull (i.e. all pit type dogs like staffies) or are they meant to be actually aimed at the pitbull breed?

    I dont understand now.
    Neither do the people who made the laws, Lala.

    The laws are a knee-jerk reaction by politicians of undetermined intellect and poor dog knowledge in an attempt to pacify a screaming public mob who 'want something done' but don't actually understand what needs to be done let alone knowing what 'something' actually is. Anything, I guess. 'Pit Bulls' are simply the current scapegoat.

    In essence, the laws target any breed that could be identified by a visual checklist as possibly 'pit bulls' but actually use a breed standard for the AmStaff. If you read the legislation carefully, the only breed which is protected from spurious seizure is the AmStaff- every other breed, or cross, papered or not is potentially fair game.

    I'm off to grab a link from FB... It's loooooong but excellent reading.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddogdodge View Post
    i agree... a much better option than laws againced pit bulls... would be that owners have to get a licence before they are allowed to own it!
    that would make the dog owners and the people who are scared of pit bulls happy!
    And perhaps even some kind of government moderation type thing where someone comes out to see how the pitbull training is going. I know that would be annoying to some pit bull owners but atleast it would mean responsible dog owners which would keep the haters happy i think.
    No one loves you like your dog does.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    If it fits the "breed standard" it is a Pit Bull which makes it a restricted breed, say bye bye to dog. Harley would be classed as a Pit Bull, Bella I think is too short.

    So the actual American Pitbull then...not "pit bulls"

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    Neither do the people who made the laws, Lala.

    The laws are a knee-jerk reaction by politicians of undetermined intellect and poor dog knowledge in an attempt to pacify a screaming public mob who 'want something done' but don't actually understand what needs to be done let alone knowing what 'something' actually is. Anything, I guess. 'Pit Bulls' are simply the current scapegoat.

    In essence, the laws target any breed that could be identified by a visual checklist as possibly 'pit bulls' but actually use a breed standard for the AmStaff. If you read the legislation carefully, the only breed which is protected from spurious seizure is the AmStaff- every other breed, or cross, papered or not is potentially fair game.

    I'm off to grab a link from FB... It's loooooong but excellent reading.
    Yea I get the "idea" behind it.

    I just meant are they banning the actual breed of Am Pit...or pit bulls which would technically mean staffordshires would be covered under that brolly too (I mean staffs not AmStaffs, and any other breed of dog that has been used in pits for fighting in the past)

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Article from the Journal of the Bar Association Queensland... Talks about breed identification under BSL;

    Hearsay ... the electronic journal of the Bar Association of Queensland - Expert Evidence and the Family Pet

    I know it doesn't really answer the original question... Except in the context of identifying a 'Pit Bull Terrier' as a restricted breed.

  8. #28

    Default

    This is the victorian govt standard for a pitbull

    http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazett...GG2011S283.pdf

    and an amendment regarding vets declarations

    http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazett...GG2012S032.pdf

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    I think the standard they are using is an American standard. As the APBT isn't actually an official registered breed in Australia.

    Sam, not sure about Oskar, He's probably too young to tell at the moment... Well for me anyway! Haha

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lala View Post
    Yea I get the "idea" behind it.

    I just meant are they banning the actual breed of Am Pit...or pit bulls which would technically mean staffordshires would be covered under that brolly too (I mean staffs not AmStaffs, and any other breed of dog that has been used in pits for fighting in the past)
    Ok- Pit Bulls are a restricted breed subject to special conditions of importation and ownership- including new registrations in some states. This does not apply to papered AmStaffs. So, if you have a dog that could possibly fit the breed standard identification checklist (possible for many cross bred dogs as well as a pure breeds depending on the eyesight and mood of your local ranger) and you do not have papers to prove it is an AmStaff, then it is a Pit Bull.

    For example: a pissed off Dobe hating ranger could declare my Dobes Pit Bulls based on visual identification and they would be seized. I could not use my pedigree papers to prove they are not and would have to go to the Civil Administration Tribunal in my state (VCAT) to fight the seizure. If, however, I had papers to say my Dobes were AmStaff, they would be safe.

    Now apply this to any bully breed, or bully looking breed. Scary?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •